Mandate to decide pension fixation representations based on last pay drawn through reasoned and speaking orders.

The four applicants, employees/retirees of the J&K Power Development Department, filed an Original Application (O.A.) seeking the fixation of their pension and retiral benefits based on their last pay drawn, specifically accounting for a pay scale up-gradation to 220-430 (pre-revised).

The applicants had submitted a formal representation to the respondents on November 25, 2025, which remained undecided.

Alongside the O.A., the applicants filed Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) No. 438/2026 seeking permission to pursue the matter collectively.

During the hearing, the applicants limited their prayer to a direction for the respondents to decide their pending representation within a stipulated timeframe.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to join and pursue the Original Application collectively under the procedural rules of the Tribunal?

2. Whether the respondents should be directed to decide the applicants' representation regarding pension fixation in light of settled judicial precedents?

The Tribunal applied Rule 4(5) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, which allows multiple applicants with a common grievance to join a single application.

The matter was adjudicated under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The Tribunal relied on the principle of fixing pension based on the last pay drawn as established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar and the CAT Jammu Bench in Tejinder Dutta and Ors. v. UT of J&K and Ors. (O.A. No. 1651/2022).

The Tribunal first addressed the procedural M.A., granting permission for the applicants to sue collectively as they shared a common cause of action regarding pensionary benefits.

Regarding the O.A., the Tribunal noted that the applicants were not seeking a final adjudication on merits at this stage, but rather a disposal of their long-pending representation.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to bypass an inquiry into the merits and instead directed the administrative authorities to perform their duty of passing a reasoned order.

By directing the respondents to treat the O.A. as a supplementary representation, the Tribunal ensured that the applicants’ claims regarding the 220-430 pay scale up-gradation would be evaluated against the specific legal standards set by the Supreme Court in the Jagdish Prasad Singh case and the Tribunal’s own precedent in the Tejinder Dutta case.

It directed the respondents to treat the O.A. and the pending representation dated November 25, 2025, as a formal representation for the fixation of pension and retiral benefits at par with the last pay drawn.

The respondents were ordered to complete this exercise and pass a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.